This is something I've debated in my mind so many times. On one hand you should allow people to do what they want and let people take responsibility for themselves. However, one issue is if someone overdoses they will need an expensive medical treatment and the person will probably be worth about $3.50. Not including the cost of crime, collateral damages, ect which I remember cost more than we spend on the war on drugs / sending people to jail. Not to mention it will give business the right to sell these illegal drugs which in return can potentially destroy a society. 

What do you guys/gals believe?

Legaliseing hash/weed did alot of good.

Its the most sold illegal drug, so it represents the biggest income for all those drug pushers.
You remove that, and you end up with less pushers in general.

Also by haveing "legal" places people can buy it, you dont have people pushing people to try the next harder drug.
You end up with less people takeing much much more serious and worse drugs.

Also by legaliseing hash, you have a controlled enviroment.
You wont have synthetic drugs, that give people psycosis and drive them mad.

Theres alot of money in this, by the state allowing it to be sold, they have nice big source of income, that isnt going to go to some shady place.

Its kind of a bit the same reason every country has laws.If you dont estabilish rules and punishment for things that can potentially destroy yourself/others, the world would just descent into chaos.So yes, war on Drugs on ANY country is important.

The type of drug matters though.

Hash is basically about as harmfull to a person useing it (if used right) as someone drinking a beer.

No one can win a war on it, look how many years its been, and its still running rampant.

Holland legalised hash, and has only seen positive effects from doing so.

My stance is it depends upon the substance and how previlent the usage of it is, and how dangerous it is.

Hash/weed usage is really high, its not very dangerous (as long as its not synthetic).

Its a waste trying to fight a war against it.
Its like when they banned Alcohol, that never worked.

Weed/hash is in the same position imo.

So does this mean we can just let the person take responibility and let them die if they overdose? 

That last bit is very disingenuous when you consider that the Netherlands has outright supplied its addicts with drugs (namely heroin) to give them a safe place to use, and that this has completely curbed new users of the drug. They use, can't hurt anybody while using, aren't using something that may be laced or even more dangerous, and they don't spend their money on this. And it doesn't cost much in terms of taxes - last I heard the lack of dangerous overdoses and the medical cost of said overdoses has more than offset the tax burden on this program.

Criminalizing drugs tends to make things even more dangerous for anybody involved. I know that's a slight generalization but it's held true enough times for it to be a valid one. 

Source on Netherlands:

https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin

Depends on the drug. If you legalize marijuana you will piss off the cartels. Its their number one cash crop south of USA. They can keep the price at whatever they like as long as its illegal and demand is high. America needs to streamline it since its not really hurting the population.

Of course.I was generalizing things, but drugs that have an effect as strong as beer for example, are possible to be legally implemented, if done properly.

I was referring more to drugs like cocaine or heroin, which can be devastating even in only 1 use.

So basically you don't mind paying more money for insurance because people don't care about anyone else but themselves.